Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, all well and good, forgive me for taking any risks. My words accusing you of something I could not possibly know were not meant to be arrogant or as such. They are merely a guess on my part and a challenge on my part to tell me I am wrong, which you could easily do. Having said that, it is true that there are many out there who may accept God exists but are in many ways rejecting him because of how his code of morals and laws are presented in Scripture, or, in my case, by the Catholic Church.
No, not in all cases. Some mysteries and some revelations are not meant for man to know. Call it a portion of the faith our Lord asks of us. (Paraphasing: After suffering many setbacks, obedient Job finally lost his patience and spoke angrily towards God demanding an explanation. Gods response to Job was such: He asked Job to answer some very difficult mystical or age old questions such as How were the planets and stars set in place? And so on. The Lord then said to Job, when you can answer my questions then I will answer yours. Until then, know who you are and what is asked of you from I your creator and be faithful in that which cannot be known.)
It is because the Holy of Holies says so and that is all. God forgives all sin and man is so selfish and so weak he is capable of the most despicable of acts. But first of all, no one, not even the Catholic Church, is dogmatic as what is meant by the act of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Consequently, they are merely surmising and they admit as much, which means your contention may be without merit.
I will grant you that for sure. My lack of humility is my sin. It is the greatest of virtues and there is not even one virtue if humility is not present --- says a very famous saint I cannot recall. But to your charge: No I would not be guilty of blasphemy if their god turned out to be the only god. Nor would Buddhists or Muslims be guilty of blasphemy by not believing in the Judeo-Christian God --- that would be absurd, IMO. But if a believer of another faith or an agnostic, et al. were well schooled in what the Christian faith taught and they then very deliberately set out to greatly offend the beliefs and cherished deity by committing vulgar acts upon such icons or images for others to see and be hurt --- well, I contend they are KNOWINGLY taking the risk and do not care. When I say knowingly, they are saying to themselves (Even if there is a one in a million chance the Christians are right I do not care I hate their God I hate their faith and I will gladly violate their feelings and their God because it gives me pleasure and if I am wrong, too bad.) That may very well be the kind of blasphemy referred to in that passage.
The problem being that we can answer ALL of the questions god supposedly put to job (none of which would require a god), we merely needed more information than job had at the time.
Incorrect. The simply fact that they find it difficult to identify what the alleged crime pertains to does not mean that questioning the supposed punishment for it and comparing that against other supposed punishments is an exercise without merit - nor does it change the fact that one of these 'crimes' has no observable negative outcomes and therefore no rational reason why any non believer would conclude that it was indeed a crime in the first place let alone one that is worse than something such as genocide which has significant, easily observable and high impact negative outcomes. It is a legitimate question about priorities.
Oh I consider the concept of god very much in human terms - which is why this particular paragraph is so very disconcerting - that you seem to honestly believe that a supposedly infinite being (with infinite justice / infinite compassion etc) can be so wronged by a finite transgression by a finite being, that it would infinitely more deserving of infinite punishment than those actions that the finite being can reasonably be expected with its finite comprehension to be able to foresee as negative outcomes within its finitely observable environment. It bespeaks a mode of judgement that either dismisses the importance of our actual effects on others (instead being infinitely self absorbed) or ignores our finite capabilities (instead being infinitely unrealistic in its expectations) and thus unjust.
And yet the same can be said of others, for which you suggest they deserve eternal punishment. Now I admit I am very far from perfect, arrogance is but one of many vices I hold. I am not however a rapist, nor a murderer, I have never knowingly inflicted harm that could be avoided on others (with the exception of some rather callous words when I was a child over I feel regret). However I was born into and raised by a catholic family and am well versed in many aspects of theology, I do not believe as I was raised to believe and while I do not consider it appropriate to offend for the sake of offence, or indeed to do so (at least while I am speaking to those I have reason to believe might take offence) when there are equally effective mechanisms by which to achieve my objectives without offence - I do not believe it appropriate to pretend that faith is the one area of discourse that so well conceived that it is without criticism and I consider that it is appropriate that at times this include blasphemy not as an end but as a means. I have committed blasphemy so many times that I would not even bother to try and estimate the number, as far as I can conclude from all my experiences of reality there are no victims of blasphemy except those religious people whom choose to take offence; certainly the impact on them is far less than the impact of a rapist on their victim - yet your words suggest that raping someone is not as bad as saying something that offends them. I am sorry, but that is Psychotic it bespeaks a significant divergence from reality.
Oh, I seriously doubt it. The mere fact a single human cell has thousands of machines inside it working harmoniously with brilliant creations is just far too spellbinding for me to ever consider it all came about by chance. The only answer to that masterpiece is God.
Your task is simple. Go discover the reality of the Judeo-Christian G-d and all your ideas about blasphemy will change. Once the One and only God becomes the premise for all discussions, the answers change for almost every question or issue.
Again, I do not get the hangup here? Is the blasphemy charge Exhibit A which you present to argue for the unreasonableness a God of the Bible could exist? There are scores of supernatural miracles indicating Jesus Christ and none other. Couple that with all other arguments and evidence for Christ and nothing else makes sense be it atheism, or any other religions god. And for you to suggest spiritual mischief has no impact on the physical universe or lives of earthlings is simply a bold contention of spurious bases, IMO. No chance.
Well, I think I have covered this point enough. But do not lose sight of the fact that no one is saying with any certainty what exactly Jesus meant by blaspheming the Holy Spirit so your presumptions are just that --- highly presumptuous.
Thanks. By the way, calling God psychotic is just without any sense. I also think you are discussing two kinds of transgressions. Natural moral law is almost universally understood and we almost all understand this in our being and conscience. Yes, we are all judged accordingly --- not just what did to others, but equally important, what we failed to do for others (charity, kindness, tolerance, etc.)
Every single one of these has been answered; the most tricky (due to the sentence being nonsensical at least in english translations) is that of the light and darkness one, because light does not 'dwell' or 'reside' and darkness does not exist.http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/job/job_08.htm said:
In which case one must be able to identify a reason why blasphemy could be considered to be worse than rape, murder and/or torture. Have you identified any objective reason why you could consider rape, murder and/or torture less detrimental than blasphemy? Have you discovered some tangible evidence of an objectively negative outcome of blasphemy other than merely how believers feel offence?
I do not understand your conflation. All I have stated was that if such a being had the priorities you have stipulated with regards to the central importance of blasphemy, then it's priorities are incredibly flawed - it is either extremely self absorbed or else that it is demonstrating extremely unrealistic expectations of something that it supposedly knows very well cannot meet those expectations (and is thus knowingly being unjust), neither one of those implies god does not exist, or even that the christian god does not exist and hold the priorities you allege - all it does is demonstrate that were the later the case (which again I doubt) it is an unjust god. I could expect better from a mere finite (mortal) judge, let alone an infinite one.
Oh, and this claim of yours is not presumptuous?
Wonderful.
And these non natural laws (called such because you labelled the others natural laws) is where we get into what is known as psychosis, what you are suggesting at the moment, is that there are non detectable outcomes of actions that are more important than those we can detect or can be reliably inferred (in an earlier post I wrote a parallel in a spoiler tag if you woud like to see a secular example of this). It is extremely well conceived to act in a manner rational to the universe and observable phenomenon around us, it is an absurdity to discount the universe around us in favour of a claimed, undetectable aspect of existence. And were 'god(s)' to expect us to do so, it would indicate an expectation to act in a psychotic manner; this seems unlikely on the face of it but even more so once applied to particular god concepts, such as the christian god where it would seem highly dubious were he to want us to engage in psycosis. It simply does not make sense.
Even if I accept your answers to Gods questions, you are not here to tell me that science has even scratched the surface to the most difficult questions about life, creation and the universe are you? Or do I have to accept DNA molecules formed from some rock soup and the Big Bang is a fact? And where matter came from, well, we will leave that for another day? The point is, God is very real and very evident to even a 6th grader. But if science is hell-bent on trying to prove nothing needed a God to exist and there is no evidence for Him, well its the Tower of Babel revisited, two millionth edition. God is telling mankind in those passages that He/God has revealed enough for us to know who He is and what is our purpose. But if we are going to demand more, obstinately refuse to serve until all of our sublime questions are answered, then we take a very grave risks. And no one is fooling anybody here. Most high-minded skeptics and adversaries continue their act just so they can continue their selfish or lustful or lazy ways and feel justified they are not accountable because there was no way of knowing anything about God or what consequences may lie ahead.
Yes, I told you. Because God said so. I also told you that you have no idea what Jesus meant in the passage about blaspheming the Holy Spirit so why on earth do you insist you have a legitimate comparison between that and murder? But to proffer my own answer --- it could very well be that blaspheming the Holy Spirit has to do with the spreading of horrible errors about God to an ignorant or ambivalent multitudes. Murder kills one person, whereas this blasphemy or false preaching may send millions to their demise. In that sense, it is a far greater sin.
Of course I find your whole argument to be conceited foolishness, and I gave an example above where blasphemy (now my definition which is just as possible or valued as yours) can be far more grave the sin and harm than that same person causing a murder. But what I wanted to ask you (and it can be expanded elsewhere) is Do you not believe God exists? But if you do believe in a supernatural intelligence, you do not believe there is compelling evidence for the Judeo-Christian G-d?
Not in the sense you are advancing your argument with presumption. Your conclusions are God has to be some kind of psychotic for him to put so much emphasis on being mocked --- when you have no idea if that is what is meant by His warning. I am merely telling you, that given the premise that our God is God, and the Bible is His Word, then anyone knowingly speaking vulgar despicable words against the Holy of Holies is taking a grave risk with his soul according to the Bible, not me.
I do not know what it implies about God quite frankly. But I am far more curious what this whole blasphemy obsession of yours implies about you? And I do not think it is a good thing either.
I totally disagree about you suggesting that the outcomes of sin are non-detectable. So maybe we cannot go further on this point? I suggest you sit in on a Catholic exorcism and observe a very palpable outcome of blasphemy. If it does not terrify you to death.
I see very little rational action in your words or position. You keep saying this conversation has nothing to do with the existence of God, but you continuously use as a premise that God is undetectable and therefore inconsequential. Cannot have it both ways.
Speaking more directly about extremist violent Islam, Pope Benedict XVI publicly said that faith without reason is a false faith. You can carry that further to realize he was speaking of any religion or ideology that dealt with violating natural moral laws as without reason, as proposing asinine concepts such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster as without reason, and so on. But to those religions that practice virtue and charity to their fellow man, we as Christians are obligated to respect those people and their beliefs. We are obligate by our God not to mock their beliefs or blaspheme their gods or what they regard as sacred. Now if you think that is some kind of bizarre request or position maintained by our faith and laws, then so be it. But I think you are knowingly fooling yourself just to keep a good face on this mission of yours.
It's true according to scripture.
That's not necessary, but you go right ahead if that tickles your fancy.
I'm pretty sure God isn't a Vulcan.
